stexpandedfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Benjamin Maxwell
I changed the "The Recruited timeline" and the "The Wounded timeline" headings to not have "timeline" in the heading, because those events didn't take place in alternate timelines. (At least that's what I assume about "The Wounded" - please change if I'm wrong). Also, I'm not sure what the source is for "The Wounded"? --Hawku 17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :I'm placing them all under the "Fan continuities" heading. --TimPendragon 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ::Cool, but is that necessary? The whole wikia is about fan continuities. :-P --Hawku 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :::It separates the canon data (which is common to all) from the contradictory backstories established in different fan fiction. It's necessary to separate them when one story contradicts another. --TimPendragon 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah but they were separated. I'm starting to think that the "Fan continuities" headline is just an extra unnecessary category. Because then wouldn't you have to add the "Alternate timelines/Star Trek: Pendragon" heading under it too? And also the minor Pendragon note in the first paragraph? Anyway, this isn't a die-hard issue or anything. Just thought I'd share my thoughts. --Hawku 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Thanks for moving the little Pendragon bit - I missed it up there. And you're right, the PDN section should be under the same heading as the others, I got called away from the computer, and didn't get back to it. :-) --TimPendragon 06:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::Sorry, Tim, I didn't mean to focus on the Pendragon sections in that way (I think it was Talon that adjusted them). And didn't you want the "Alternate timeline" heading in there? Anyway, I meant to more make a point (not to you personally) that I didn't think the "Fan continuties" nesting was necessary (and not just in this article). To me it seems like separating the fan history from the canon is like we're a canon wiki that has to put up with fan continuties. If you look at Memory Beta, they don't separate book history from canon, but integrate it instead. They don't say "Novel continuties". I think we could do somewhat of the same thing, by putting an effort into the flow (depending on the article and the authors' wishes). And if info from different series contradicts each other that harshly, just separate with "In Star Trek: Sovereign" and "In Star Trek: Intrepider" headings without the "Fan continuties" nest (which would be most cases). It's the fan series we're trying to feature, not the the differentiating factor of fan series from canon. And if we all happen to try to contradict canon history on purpose, then you would put "Fan continuties" as a heading. But that would be like a one in a million chance. Anyway, that's just a really dumb, geeky, formatting nitpick of mine. I could be wrong. lol. If anyone gets my nitpick, let me know! ...Oh yeah, and what's the source for "The Wounded"? --Hawku 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::In general, integration is the way to go. But for articles like this one - where the different fan stories contradict each other - we need to separate. "The Wounded" and "The Recruited" data are incompatible. Lumping them under "fan continuities" (or a similar) heading is preferable than having all the contradicting data in the main body (which, in Maxwell's case, as of now, is just the canon info). It's not that I'm intentionally segregating the canon from the fanon, but creating a cut off point, so we can see what data is shared between all, then branching off into the different fan versions. Robert April is another case where this is applicable. Does that make sense? --TimPendragon 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, I think I see what you're saying (maybe I had the wrong perspective) ...Maybe it's the "Fan continuities" as the headline title that nitpicks at me. It's like, "Well, obviously, I came to this site to read about the fan continuities." lol --Hawku 05:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Well, I'd thought about calling it "Post-canon" or something like that, but that doesn't really work in a lot of cases. We know how Christopher Pike's story ends, its his early years that are different in various stories. Also, labeling it "fan" isn't a quality judgement or anything, but it does let people know what's what, that "up to this point, anyone can use this data for a story," because it's canon and we all share that. --TimPendragon 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC) "The Wounded"--timeline??? With all due respect, that heading is misleading because it suggests that the material under it took place during the canon episode, " " when it did not. I would like to request that whoever put that title there please change it to something that makes it clear that this is not material from the episode, because even under the "Fan Continuities" heading, it still looks like that material actually aired. I don't think that's right. Nerys Ghemor 19:05, October 23, 2010 (UTC) :If the information is from a fanfic called "The Wounded" then all that would be required is a note under the heading stating that the information is from fan fiction and not from the TNG episode. However, the information isn't sources as Hawku pointed out. It looks like it might be a piece of STEU fiction, it a source isn't provided I'll get rid of it next week and that will also solve the problem. – 03:37, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Problem solved. No one sourced it so I removed it. – 04:09, October 29, 2010 (UTC)